Pictures not sharp with 18-55 kit lens

I would say that's a pretty decent shot for the kit lens, considering you say you're a beginner. I too would like to see a 100% crop. The JPG compression artifacts really affect any sharpness details.

The crop looks good. If you are trying to compare the image to a P&S then you will never be happy. P&S apply sharpening in camera, but DSLRS give you freedom to apply the settings you want afterward.

that image doesn't look too bad at all. ithink a lot of your disappointment probably stems from expecting the pictures to look fantastic straight out of the camera. a little bit of adjustment in levels, an increase in saturation anc contrast, will will work wonders. you can apply a bit of sharpening in Photoshop either CS2 if you're rich, or elements 4 if you're like me.

that sort of photograph like you posted is a common landscape type view, and most people, me included take more of this kind of photograph than any other. they work best with a tripod so you can have long slow shutter speeds - the smaller the aperture ( ie higher number f-stop ) the better the depth of field -up to a point, you probably want the kit lens on about f/11-16 as I suggested above ) and set the ISO to the lowest number your camer a gives - ideally ISO 100. If you have your camera set to Av you can control the aperture value with the little thumb wheel behind the shutter button. Big number = small aperture = slower shutter speed.

Tripods are great for landscapes, many people would say essential, but ultimately you want the camera to be rock steady before you hit the shutter. Tripods also make it easier to make sure you have your horizons straight - my big weakness - and double and triple-check composition for things you don't want in the frame - trashcans, litter, background objects etc.

Don't forget to add a remote shutter release.

I just got a copy of CS2, and have started a class on it. I guess once I'm more familiar with how to 'enhance' my photo's, I may not be so critical about my pics.

Thank you. I guess I'm just being hard on myself.

You will also want to utilize RAW imaging. My images are much sharper with more detail when shot in RAW. This will also give you a ton of leverage to maximize the amout af detail you can pull from the image. Nice image by the way.

Yes, I just started shooting in RAW. I guess once I become better at post processing the pics, i'll be more comfortable with the pictures I take.

You are being hard on yourself! there is a lot to learn, CS2 is a huge program which most of us barely scratch the surface of. the basics are easy enough, but the fancy stuff is complex, and there seems to be several ways of doing anything. nice thing about digital is you can take as many pictures as you like to practice technique till you get it right ( or at least good enough)

One thing I would suggest is that while you are learning to use the camera in the first place, don't worry about RAW, it just adds another layer of complexity you don't need right now. I'd suggest shooting in large fine JPEG, and use the camera menu to go into parameters, and set one that gives a touch of in camera enhancement to sharpness, contrast, and saturation.

I can hear the gasps from the other users, but until you have the PC side of things sorted out, this will make you happier. don't worry about using the picture modes to shoot in either, get comfy with the camera and then start using it more creatively. you'll pick things up fast on the forum, and you'll probably be ready for your first L in about a month. I kid you not.

Please note my comments on RAW are strictly my own view and are sharply at odds with other posters

I dislike PP so try to do as little as possible. I am lazy , weak minded and easily led, and will never amount to anything.

First of all .. people HAVE TO STOP recommending $1000 lenses to newbies. It makes the hobby practically unobtainable to a lot of people and creates the completely false impression that better equipment will make a better photographer.

Now, to the original poster, as someone already said, that picture looks great from here. Try to post the original, full size full quality version online somewhere where we can look at it.

As far as DOF, that stands for Depth of Field. The DOF for a particular photo is the distance in front of and behind your focus point that remains in focus. DOF is completely controllable.

Now, this doesn't appear to be the case with this particular photo, but do not get suckered by the 1/focalLength rule .... someone with no shooting technique can motion blur a photo at 1/1000 of a second, all it takes is poor bracing and an abrupt index finger. There is an actual, physical technique to preparing for a photo and depressing the shutter. Factors include breathing, body position, bracing, arm/hand position, and as any competitive handgun/rifle shooter can attest to ... trigger control. Again, it doesn't appear that you've done wrong here, but I just wanted to address it.

While I'm writing a book ...

DOF is controlled by 3 facotors: Focal Length, Aperture, and DFS:

Focal length is, in laymans terms, the "zoom" aspect of the lens. If you're using the 18-55 kit lens at its widest point, your focal length is 18mm. The longer your focal length (higher the number), the shallower your depth of field. The shorter your focal length (lower number), the deeper your depth of field.

The aperture is a "curtain" of sorts inside a lens. The aperture conrols the amount of light the lens passes to the film/sensor. When an aperture is "wide open", that means that it is allowing the largest amount of light through that it can, the physical number (ex. F/8) will be as low as that lens can go. As the actual number increases in value (F16, F22, F32, etc...) the aperture is closing down and letting less light in. In terms of depth of field, the lower the number, the shallower the depth of field. The higher the number, the deeper the depth of field.

DFS stands for Distance From Subject. The closer you are to your subject (the focus point), the shallower your depth of field will be. The farther away you are, the greater your DOF. In terms of landscape photography, you are typically using a wide-angle lens (small focal length) and your distance from subject is very far ... so the difference between using F/4 or F/11 will be nothing in terms of DOF.

With that said, every lens has its "Sweet Spot" which is where it produces the best/sharpest images (optically speaking), for most consumer grade lenses this is at or around F/8.

Look forward to seeing a larger version of your photo.


Bill

steved110 wrote:
Please note my comments on RAW are strictly my own view and are sharply at odds with other posters

I dislike PP so try to do as little as possible. I am lazy , weak minded and easily led, and will never amount to anything.

For what its worth ... I agree with you completely on shooting RAW when also trying to learn to use an SLR, I don't think it should be done.

Bill

Thanks for the great info. Once I have the pic posted online, i'll let you know. thanks agian!

I just wanted to say that pic was nicely composed, so half your battle is already won. The technical aspect of photography will come with time. The kit lens, while not the best, will take good shots with practice. Stop it down to f/8 or so and use a tripod. Iused its for 6 months before I got another lens and I think it forced me to pay closer attention to my technique to get good shots.

well said, and not much time either. It really doesn't take long to get the hang of this stuff. It's the artistic side that's hardest.